Dear Peter--

I enjoy your lively, active voice in this list. Always make a point to read the
threads you are into. But I had to chuckle--as so many of us Americans probably
did--when you referred to the IRS and CIA as "honoured institutions." If an
American had said the same, we would have assumed it was sarcasm or black humor.
Anyway, we know what you meant to say!  Keep up the good work.

Sheila Darr
Austin (Texas) Children's Museum


Peter Rebernik wrote:

> Dear David,
>
> I also do hate (distaste, reject, don't like, will never agree with, think
> it is stupid, simple and naive to emphasise) "political correctness",
> because it is, as you, David, say, it is a possibility to suppress opinions
> and censor meanings, ideas, threads to different ways of thinking. It seems
> to evolve into something weakening, diminishing, dumbfounding,
> indoctrinating etc.
>
> BUT: You know, it also can help you to think (or being sensible, thoughtful)
> before you embarrass someone or a group which has been embarrassed through
> centuries etc. BUT: it should not be considered as a simple principle or law
> to be obeyed. It can only serve as means to think before indeliberately
> offending. But I do condemn those over-sensitive groups which shout out
> crying after each violation of "political correctness. This is terror and
> censorship. I try not to hurt anybody, but I also try not to be hurt just by
> the wrong words.
>
> "Are we afraid 'visitors' can't think for themselves?" - is a good question.
> I also do like the remark on the notion that "splendour" was the key word of
> the discussion.
>
> BUT: What kind of visitor target group does a museum attract with the title
> "Splendour of Uniforms of the Second World War (OR Vietnam, Arlington,
> Habsburg empire etc.)", with
> "Uniforms for Holocaust" or with
> "Uniform Producing Companies during II.World War"?
>
> Those target group exist without doubt. Most of the Americans visiting
> Bavaria or Austria would like to visit the tomb of Hitler! As they do in
> Obersalzberg in Bavaria ("the Alpine fortress") and Berlin and Braunau, his
> birthplace. Paying for it! If his body would be on display, this venue would
> become a fortune. - (So far: We don't have a task in culture.)
>
> A good theatre (or movie) shows dramatic stories with personalities who do
> not at all resemble us in a simple way (Hamlet, Romeo, Julia, Don Quixote,
> Scarlett O'Hara). But these figures and their stories MOVE us, they force us
> to contemplate about our properties, about our souls, emotions, ideas. They
> do not try to avoid us. They do not try to state: This is the cloth Hamlet
> wore, made of sheep wool, washed, dyed etc.
>
> That is what culture is all about: values, emotions, thoughts, involvement -
> and not cowardice.
>
> What is a museum: a (coward) institution just playing its conserving role or
> leaping into life? An institution concerned with moths in uniforms or
> displaying the human role and character?
> An honoured institution like the IRS or the CIA? A lively house like an
> opera, a theatre, a good book or movie?
> In many museum conferences the museum managers make their point in "playing
> a role within the community or within an interracial community", standing
> against nuclear weapons (ICOM 1995) or being against the Bosnian or Serbian
> war. They want to "educate the public", "bring forth scientific knowledge"
> and so on. Just words, when it comes to a simple conflict on how to display
> objects like uniforms - or Egyptian mummies? Or a mission statement to be
> fulfilled?.
>
> A museum can decide on what side it is on - as every human being can make
> this decision. But, it/he/she will be judged for this decision.
>
> Yours,
> Peter, the Rebernik
>
> PS: David, I agree with you: I think it is wonderful to discuss all those
> things around the world. LONG LIVE THE INTERNET!
>
> +---------------------------------------------------
>  | PHAROS International - Bureau for Cultural Projects
>  | Peter Rebernik, Dipl.-Ing.
>  | Anton Baumgartnerstr. 44/C2/3/2; A-1230 Wien / AUSTRIA
>  | Tel.: (... 43 1) 667 7375; Fax: (... 43 1) 667 2984
>  | Mobiltel.: (... 43 664) 230 2767
>  | E-Mail: [log in to unmask]; Web: http://www.rebernik.at
> +------------------------------------------------------
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: DavidH5994 <[log in to unmask]>
> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.museum-l
> An: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> Datum: Montag, 18. Mai 1998 12:22
> Betreff: Threads of History
>
> >I read the lively exchange of messages about military uniforms with great
> >interest and discomfort, and have gone to the trouble of printing them out
> and
> >saving them, thinking they might be useful for some future project,
> currently
> >undefined and nebulous.  I think they are important and have much to say
> about
> >the symbolism of objects, the mission(s) of museums, the uses of history
> and
> >historical artifacts, and, not least, the power of words.  I hope you all
> will
> >indulge me in expressing some thoughts about uniforms and this debate
> before
> >the threads unravel.
> >
> >I think some of the statements say a great deal about the fact that many
> >museum people are not happy unless all their museum colleagues subscribe to
> >the same uniform (pardon the expression) social agenda with which they want
> to
> >indoctrinate their viewers; they condemn "old-fashioned" museum displays
> >which, by failing to deconstruct "splendid" objects (i.e., negatively
> analyze
> >them), seem to imply approval.  In the case of military uniforms, they seem
> to
> >fear that unless the museum explicitly reminds the viewer that war is bad,
> he
> >or she will conclude that war must be splendid because it occasions such
> >splendid uniforms.  I wonder if perhaps we sometimes don't give museum
> >visitors enough credit: are we afraid they can't think for themselves?
> >
> >A word about words: I have a feeling that this sometimes heated exchange
> might
> >never have occurred if the original announcement had not contained that
> potent
> >word "splendor."  Much of the debate concenns that single word.  Next,
> >consider the ancillary discussion of political correctness.  To the extent
> >that "political correctness" refers to wars over words, that assertion was
> >accurate, objections notwithstanding.  It is clear that in some circles the
> >use of the word "splendor" in connection with anything military is
> considered
> >politically incorrect.  While "political correctness" is a contemporary
> >phrase, referring derisively to a perception of the prevailing climate of
> >opinion, I suggest that political correctness is an ancient attitude.
> Among
> >the Nazis it would have been politically incorrect to suggest that Jews and
> >Gypsies could be worthy human beings.  Political correctness implies
> >reductive, agenda-driven values.  It is entirely natural that those accused
> of
> >holding reductive, agenda-driven ideas chafe at being stereotyped.
> >Accusations and counter-accusations fly back and forth.  Museum
> exhibitions,
> >such as the Smithsonian's originally proposed Enola Gay display, imply or
> >accuse historical figures of having an unwholesome political or social
> agenda,
> >and are in turn accused of having a warped revisionist agenda.
> >
> >Meanwhile, the historical artifacts themselves stand--or hang--mute, unable
> to
> >speak for themselves.  Factions tug at them, seeking to manipulate them to
> fit
> >one agenda or another.  Ideas and ideologies are like uniforms: however
> >similar, one size does not fit all.  There is something to be said for
> those
> >old-fashioned, context-starved exhibitions with simple labels containing
> >nothing but notes on makers, materials, and provenance (bearing in mind the
> >fact that the mere act of selection and sequence of artifacts for display
> >embodies an implicit idea, viewpoint, or agenda).  The viewer was supposed
> to
> >supply the context and interpretation, including personal prejudices, likes
> >and dislikes, rather than being TOLD what to think about the objects and
> their
> >meaning..
> >
> >References have been made to the variety of contexts within which objects
> can
> >be read, and I heartily second that notion.  While "war" is an obvious
> context
> >for military uniforms, it is just as obviously not the only one possible.
> In
> >fact, it is a facile, superficial, knee-jerk reaction.  "Uniform" does not
> >equal "war," nor does it equal male agression or domination.  People seem
> to
> >be reacting to the concept of "military," not "uniform."  Do the uniforms
> of
> >the United States Marine Band signify war to the same degree and in the
> same
> >way battle fatigues do?  I don't think so.  How about quasi-military
> uniforms
> >like those of the Salvation Army or the U.S. surgeon-general?  I don't
> think
> >so (I suggest a re-reading of Shaw's "Major Barbara" to suggest additional
> >contexts).
> >
> >A few of the writers said museums "must," "should," or "shouldn't" do
> certain
> >things with their artifacts, which I find troubling.  I believe in academic
> >and curatorial freedom, and I grow weary of hearing critics make
> >pronouncements about what museums should or shouldn't do with their
> artifacts,
> >how they should or shouldn't display them, and what they should or
> shouldn't
> >say about them.  Too often, the claim that a museum "must" or "should"
> supply
> >"context" seems to mean that it should satisfy the critic's particular
> >predetermined agenda.  I reject the notion that a museum "must" supply the
> >context of war and killing in its display of military uniforms.
> >
> >On the other hand, I certainly would not oppose an exhibition which would
> seek
> >to demythologize war by showing bullet-riddled artifacts and bloodied
> >uniforms, as the first (over)reaction proposed--as long as they're the
> "real"
> >thing (are there ghoulish curators who collect and preserve such
> items?)--but
> >I think artifically doctoring real uniforms in good condition might
> wouldn't
> >fit standard museum ethics.  Moreover, museum representations of death and
> >carnage are probably unnecessary: television, movies, and even sensational
> wax
> >museum exhibits have educated us well, thank you.  You'd have to live a
> pretty
> >sheltered life nowadays not to know in advance that war is hell.  What's
> wrong
> >with a glorious or "splendid" exhibition of uniforms which would help to
> >suggest how militarism can seem attractive and seductive?  That, it seems
> to
> >me, would be a challenging and educational exhibition.  To show only
> carnage
> >is to re-state the obvious.  I can think of other contexts in which to
> display
> >uniforms, some positive, some negative, some neutral.
> >
> >Over the centuries, much blood has been shed by armies who didn't wear
> >uniforms at all, and I don't mean just naked Celts (although I suppose one
> >could argue that nudity was their unifying emblem).  Recently I watched the
> >French film "Queen Margot" and its description of the St. Bartholomew's Day
> >massacre, and no one seemed to require a uniform to do a very effective job
> of
> >butchering his perceived enemies.  Now if you want to argue that uniforms
> and
> >all the insignia of rank and status that go with them help to make armies
> more
> >effective, precise fighting machines, I'm sure that's a valid theory, but I
> >think a book would be a better medium for telling that story than a museum
> >exhibition.
> >
> >I am personally opposed to war and killing, indeed totally opposed to
> capital
> >punishment under any and all circumstances--yet I am fully appreciative of
> the
> >power of the symbols of militarism and heroic ideals to rouse passions, and
> I
> >admit to taking delight in some of these--er--splendid symbols.
> >
> >So shoot me.
> >
> >--David Haberstich
> >